Strategies and Modifications

Grace (1998) makes the point that since AT is connected to personality, it is questionable as to whether or not it is a characteristic that can be changed or altered in learners.  Some articles offer strategies for working around extreme degrees of AT, while other articles offer suggestions for actually altering one’s degree of AT.  Cheng and Banya (1998) recommend that students be aware of their own learning styles and cooperate with instructors so that the teaching style matches the preferred learning style of the students.  Furthermore, they recommend that students do try to change their degree of AT by becoming moderately tolerant of ambiguity and going beyond their “comfort zones” (p.83).  However, these authors offer no advice as to how learners ought to go about changing their degree of AT.  They have given ambiguous advice on the assumption that one can alter their own degree of AT in order to be more successful in acquiring a second language.  Grace (1998) goes into more detail, offering three types of strategies students with moderate AT use when encountering ambiguity and recommending these strategies for students who wish to alter their degree of ambiguity.  First of all, affective control is one strategy where learners may allow a time lapse, simply acknowledge their feelings, engage in self-talk, or adopt some perspective.  Secondly, engagement is offered as a strategy where learners search the language material on a deeper level, revise their information, use other resources, or engage in repetition.  Finally, this author found that some students with moderate degrees of AT rely on external support by contacting a tutor, fellow students, other experts, or even hired a private tutor.  These are some helpful insights into what learners with a moderate degree of AT actually do to manage ambiguity in SLA.  It is suggested that these strategies can be adopted and employed by other learners as practical strategies for success.

            In addition to student development of strategies, there are many studies which offer suggestions to help second language teachers modify their lessons to meet the needs of students will varying degrees of AT.  Felder (1995) points out that “effective instruction reaches out to all students, not just those with one particular learning style” (p.23).  As an instructor, one place to start is to “help individual students discern which strategies are most relevant to their learning styles, tasks, and goals” (Oxford, 1994, p.6).   El-Koumy (2000) recommends a six-fold plan for helping students develop a moderate level of AT: 1) create an environment where risk-taking can occur without fear of criticism; 2) tolerate less critical errors; 3) teach intelligent guessing strategies; 4) teach compensation strategies; 5) discuss fears of ambiguity openly in class; 6) plan a cooperative writing about ambiguity and pair students with varying degrees of AT.  Several other studies site similar modifications and methods for instructors.  Oxford and Ehrman (1993) also recommend open class discussion of fears, but further recommend a sort of counseling role for the instructor, where the teacher addresses the frustrations and feelings of students with strong fears of uncertainty and low AT.  They recommend individual counseling, as well as teaching students how and when to take risks in language acquisition. 

            Some studies focused specifically on helping learners succeed at certain ambiguous tasks.  Grace (1998) recommends using technology for translation purposes to eliminate vocabulary ambiguity.  However, this method should be used with caution, as translating everything into the first language may slow a learner down in the long run and will not help to move their AT into a moderate range.  This method may be helpful, though, if used selectively and not exclusively.  Illeva (2001) advocates cultural exploration methods to help with cultural ambiguity.  This method is much like scientific inquiry with interaction at the center.  Lyster (1998) recommends teachers give feedback that avoids ambiguity and only praises what is accurate.  This is to allow students to recognize when they have produced language correctly, which reduces production ambiguity.